Information Sharing Session of Optical Networks 2020 at the European Conference on Optical Communications (ECOC) September 18, 2017

Transcription

1 Information Sharing Session of Optical Networks 2020 at the European Conference on Optical Communications (ECOC) September 18, 2017

2 What is Optical Networks 2020 (ON2020)? Open, global, industry-wide initiative Understand requirements and define optical network solution strategies beyond Long-term industry visions beyondcurrent product deployments and beyondconcrete product roadmaps. (No near-term thinking, competition, standardization constraints.) Develop commonly agreed-upon goals and directions that the fiber-optic communications industry should be expected to work towards. Foster open and sustainable ecosystem for end users, service providers, and equipment and component vendors to collectively address the optical networking demands in the cloud era. Website:

3 What has happened so far and what s next? First meetings and workshops at OFC 2016, ECOC 2016, OFC 2017 Formulated survey on optical networking requirements for the cloud era Significant involvement from over 10 major global telecom and datacomnetwork operators as well as from a handful of other industry experts It is the role of this session to read out some key results of the survey and discuss them within this group Next major session: Industry Visions for a Converged Optical Networking Roadmap as part of the Show Floor Programming at OFC 2018

4 Four survey topic areas 1. Capacity and granularity 2. Connectivity and flexibility 3. Management and operations 4. Open networking and disaggregation Some general observations: Responses still seem to be somewhat near-termish It is very hard to imagine continuing exponential growth trends (but these do exist!) The goal of ON2020 is to work towards those (seemingly fantasy-like) far-out goals

5 Some examples Who would have believed that today s numbers could become reality a decade ago?

6 Some further examples When claiming lower traffic growth rates, oneshould be able toexplain why10+years of sustained higher growth should all of a sudden slow down. (There may be good reasons, but reasons must be given.)

7 Topic 1: Capacity and granularity Webscale and large telecom carriers frequently need more than 10 Tb/s per link today Will need 40+ Tb/s soon Annual traffic growth numbers between 30% and 50% per year were given Consistent view: a single C-band will not be sufficient. Divergence based upon fiber resources.those who don t have fiber, want C+L;those who have plenty of fiber want efficient span overlay (SDM). Uniformly expressed desire to deploy C-bands independently(fiber rich) as well as deploy C-band first, then later deploy L-band (fiber poor). Some explicitly mention that soon multiple fiber pairs and C+L will be deployed together raising the opportunity for hardware integration for efficiency. Some explicitly mention shift to multi-fiber deployment strategies. ( Industry needs to start thinking in terms of deploying multiple fiber pairs together. )

8 Topic 1: Capacity and granularity But operators with lighter current loading (~1T per link today) will also be impacted: 40 C System = C Current x (1+r Growth ) TimeToExhaust Time to Exhaust [years] Current Loading [%] Traffic Growth Rate [%] Current Loading = C Current / C System 10G of traffic running on a 10T system 1x100G running on a 10T system 10x100G running on a 10T system

9 Topic 1: Capacity and granularity In terms of granularity, backbone needs are 100G/200G/400G Service granularities of 25G preferred with Webscales, but still reach down to low levels (10M, 100M, 1G) for telecom operators Routers and low-level electronic OTN switching continues to be needed, but with ample optical bypass ( ~80% of the traffic on a core link may share common sourcedestination pair ) Superchannels consistently favored once interface rates reach 400G to 1T (Arguments voiced: Spectral efficiency, fewer components/lower cost, easier OAM) Clear view that superchannels are a necessity coming from technology constraints

10 Topic 1: Capacity and granularity 100 Single-carrier Interface Rates Gb/s Tb/s 10 40% 1 20% % If we do business as usual, a router blade in 2024 will have 20 x 1T Ethernet client interfaces!

11 Topic 1: Capacity and granularity Ranking exercise #1

12 Topic 2: Connectivity and flexibility Number of network nodes depends widely on operator and sub-networks, with a desire to consolidate nodes where possible Node degrees >6 needed CDC deployments held up by cost, reliability, and managementconcerns. Answers ranging from would take once it is practically for free or a commodity. We simply do not suffer from contention today to a way to treat transceivers as a shared resource, can pre-deploy transceivers and then utilize them on any route once the service need arises or changes. Dynamic reconfiguration desired on a few-minutes timescale No desire to transparently bridge domains other than submarine/terrestrial-lh and terrestrial-lh/metro-regional. (In particular, no desire to bridge metro/pon, inter/intra-dc.)

13 Topic 2: Connectivity and flexibility Ranking exercise #2

14 Topics 3&4: Management, operations, disaggregation SDN is universally seen an important ingredient in optical networking for faster service innovation and OAM Frustration on non-existent SDN solutions is evident and lets operators partner with companies to develop their own proprietary SDN solution Disaggregation and white boxes are seen as important developments to reduce cost and avoid vendor lock-in As long as there is significant performance differentiation between vendors, disaggregation is less of an issue, but some see this argument starting to fade. Still most prominent in the LH.

15 Topics 3&4: Management, operations, disaggregation Reliability is a major concern with disaggregation. Many want white boxes and disaggregation but are not willing to compromise on overall system reliability. We need a highly reliable network because of service failure causing business loss. Generally, we always want to have both, ultra high reliability together with best-effort pricing So who takes responsibility for reliably operating disaggregated networks then? Operator must have the ability to identify the causes of the fail and clearly define the service boundaries between different vendors We don t want to compromise performance but are willing to compromise on necessary resources to take more responsibilities for trouble shooting and fault identification.

16 Topics 3&4: Management, operations, disaggregation Topic overwhelms several (even large) telecom operators ( implies several organizational challenges which we could not solve today and it will change the whole model. It would need a system integrator company or department ) Resolution is often based on Internet traffic = best effort and/or on multi-path redundancy : There is lots of redundancy in real networks. We need to find a balance between the equipment reliability and redundancy and probably this balance point is different for different network designs. Good point, but then: How much cost savings will be left from SDN after subtracting the cost of such hardware redundancy?

17 Topics 3&4: Management, operations, disaggregation Ranking exercise #3

18 Some heads-up on ON2020 s future plans I. Possible Sub-Projects 1) Next-Gen ROADM/OXC (lowered power & cost) 2) Transport SDN (resource optimization & multi-vendor interoperability) 3) 5G-oriented optical network (low latency, accurate synchronization & network slicing) 4) Next WDM line rate (200+G) 5) New optical link technologies (C+ band & new fiber) II. Whitepaper series -Based on our project outputs III. ON2020 OFC Offered by OFC s Show Floor Programming Committee a 90-min session in Theater II/III -Need speakers confirmed by Nov. 17, 2017 VOLUNTEERS ALWAYS WELCOME PLEASE CONTACT ON2020

19 5G-Oriented OTN: Supporting new services Core Backbone 1 5G Hauling High BW (10G~200G), N*25G FlexO-FR Low latency; Precise time synchronization WDM to Access Aggr. Access 5G xhaul Multi-service Metro Private Line Clouds Corp. Enterprise Residence IP+Optical 2 Multi-service Transport 1. Enterprise Flexible bandwidth: 50/100M~100G Deterministic low latency (e.g. real-time trading) Security & Reliability (Isolated pipe, protection) 2. Residential video High bandwidth (30M/50M~10G), high connectivity (3K connections per 100G) Live broadcasting, VoD, hitless bandwidth change 3. Better support for Ethernet services Transport of multi Eth services (25/50GE, 200GE/400GE, FlexE 2.0) 4. Network slicing High connectivity (IoT), Low latency (Car comm.) 5. Evolved OTN Simplified OTN, lower power consumption & latency, easier operations and management

20 Next WDM Line Rate: Long-haul 200G and/or 400G? Network operators need increasingly large IP interface, such as 400GE, 1T, 2T Customers need lower cost/bit at the same time 200G reaching >1000km with 22dB/span and EDFA is desired 400G per wavelength is doable, but its reach needs to be increased (by new technologies?) Our community can work together to address the above challenges 10G 4x2.5G 800G 80x10G super 3.2T 80x40G DQPSK 8T 80x100G SD2 16T+ 80x200G Longer distance G 32x10G T 80x40G ODB T 80x100G HD? T+ 80x200G 16QAM T+ 400G? Larger Capacity

21 Next-Generation Fiber & Amplifier C band (40nm): 1525~1565nm L band(60nm): 1565~1625nm C-Band 32/38.4nm (80/96x50GHz) Single Optical amplifier (OA) Single WSS Good performance Extended C-Band (more channels) Single OA Single WSS Similar performance? C+L max. 100nm (max. 250x50GHz) Double OAs Double WSSs Performance degradation?

22